[thelist] Re: clarify standards organizations? (long - very long)

[Bev Corwin]

For the record,  I'm not offended or feel slighted,  as I am aware of the
general prevailing attitudes on these things.  Again, I'll restate, that I'm
not opposed to standards per se,  I think they are useful and often
necessary,  though often over-stated not to mention, over-rated.  However,
I do take issue with the access issues and organizational shortcomings of
most of the standards and guidelines groups and their leadership's obvious
biases, etc.  I believe they should all study the facts, reflect and
consider there is some serious room for improvement.

I'm just simply stating my personal observations over the past 4 years
studying these things..... as an independent, outside observer.  No big
emotional thing going on here at all,  just a simple observation.

Cheers,
Bev

----- Original Message -----
From: <jay.blanchard at thermon.com>
To: <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:58 AM
Subject: [thelist] Re: clarify standards organizations? (long - very long)


> Perhaps I came off a little differently than expected when I asked about
> the "extension of which large corporation(s)". I should have
> explained  more clearly. And Bev, my apologies if I have slighted you in
> any way. Let's summarize....
>
> It was asked what could be said to convince a group of coders to adhere to
> currently accepted recommendations rather than writing code that was
> considered deprecated. "If you try to use valid code in your project- why
> do you do so?" - Shoshannah
>
> Answers included "futureproof, accessibility, portability, maintenance
> issues, tell them the tale of how MSN got shouted down recently for
> blocking other browsers from accessing it's site (exclusion), writing
valid
> code will send a clear signal that browsers need to be compliant in their
> handling of what we code, if they're only coding for IE5, they're limiting
> themselves, which is not something I'd recommend. Yes, IE5 may have the
> major market share right now, but as Ben Henick mentioned, Netscape had
the
> major market share awhile back and they no longer do, etc.".
>
> Then another thread was born where it was confessed, "I confess to testing
> sites in too few browsers and I don't often bother to validate my code,
> even though I know I should, because it just doesn't seem that relevant
> right now." Another lamented, "I'm currently developing content for a site
> in which several people are coding different portions. The W3C protocols
> were mentioned in the beginning, and everyone agreed that writing
compliant
> code was the goal. <snip> ...a template was agreed upon, pages were coded,
> the CSS was ignored, there are font tags all over the place and the
> original template was hacked beyond recognition. Sooooo, I'm now in the
> process of shaking the bugs out of all the code."
>
> Then it was noted that some of the web sites where some of the
> recommendations are touted as being the 'bee's knees' (i.e. the ISO site,
> Bobby) don't validate to currently acceptable standards. Funny? Yes! Sad?
Yes.
>
> I wrote my 'Different POV' based on the fact that I work for a company
> whose ISO 9001 registration is very important. While the web site(s) are
> but one small part of the overall portion, they QA people insist that
> documentation and some sort of standards (in this case in the form of W3C
> recommendations) exist. They also expect that I code according to that
> documentation and makes notes as to why there are deviations (such as the
> body tag changes to accommodate NN). My particular rant was that
> documentation was needed and most did not perform it and that
> recommendations (or standards) make for a solid foundation on which to
> build documentation. Reading the map is a lot easier when you know what
the
> keys are, if you know what I mean. And yes....I have started assembling
the
> articles(s) about documentation.
>
> Then someone wrote that we code for browsers, not for standards. Job
> security? Only because browser manufacturer's feet are not held to the
> fire, because there are no standards...only recommendations. When Netscape
> was on top we all learned tables (a proprietary set of tags at that time,
> which were just barely on the recommendations radar when the version of NN
> that supported tables came out). Now tables are out because CSS is on the
> map and tables are no longer, well.....cool.
>
> Bev came in with, "The fact that small businesses are excluded from
> standards groups by the
> mere fact that the way the standards groups are organized and the price
for
> membership is so high,  not to mention the prudish attitudes of many of
the
> standards group leaders..." Her primary concern was "exclusion". And
> 'membership' begets 'extension'. Many posted the link to the members list
> of W3C as a response to my question.
>
> "..the W3C does not go to any great lengths to recruit the efforts of
small
> businesses,  educators or contractors in the development of their
standards..."
>
> a. W3C is not a standards group, they provide recommendations. They do not
> recruit, nor should they have to recruit. Intelligent members of the web
> development community seek them out and participate at many, many levels.
> Many educational facilities have membership in the W3C.
> b. No one is excluded from membership, but the cost may be beyond some.
> c. You may still participate in the W3C without being a member. There are
> many public lists which allow participation by non-members.
> d. How about IETF, http://www.ietf.org ? A little more on the networking
> side of the issue, but worth perusing. No cost for membership, just some
of
> your time is needed. There are links here to many other groups which work
> to further Internet technology. Or ECMA (the JavaScript people),
> http://www.ecma.ch .
>
> I guess my final points on this can be summed up like this;
>
> Standards (or recommendations in the case of W3C) aren't perfect, but they
> give us a place to start.
>
> What does exclusion (if it exist) from the standards process really do to
> the overall process? Do you have some tags you'd like to see included in
> the recommendation? Do you not want to do something that someone else has
> told you is the thing you need to do? Does the organization appear
> conspiratorial against small business, education, and others because of
its
> relationships with corporations/individuals/large research universities
who
> can afford to pay membership? Do you see mark-up language technology
moving
> in a direction which may not be favorable?
>
> Have you attempted to participate? Joined a discussion list? Started a
> petition to get an 'individual' status position within the W3C at a
> reasonable cost? Who is really doing the excluding?
>
> I never said 'you' had to code to the recommendations, I just said that I
> had to and document any deviations from a set of recommendations. I also
> said that working from a specific reference point makes it easier to do my
> job as I do not have to ask myself, "Do I want to use the <font> tag here,
> or should I use <h2 class="arial">?" The guy who takes may place will have
> a set of guidelines in place in the form of recommendations and
> documentation, including the other standardized things that I use to do my
> job...a 'qwerty' keyboard, ASP 3.0, an OO/C++ based text editor, a
> selection of graphics editing tools that generate .JPEG, .GIF, and .PNG
> formatted pictures and representations, x86 architecture based test and
> production servers, etc. And the person that follows him, and so on...
>
> So in response to Shoshannah's original question I will repeat what I said
> yesterday, "because it is the smart thing to do". I don't give a rat's
> petootie if you don't code to recommendations or (just document what you
> do). Both of our actions have something to say to the people who organize
> the recommendations and to those who follow them. If we all started coding
> according to XHTML 1.0 (no matter what the result in everyone's browser of
> choice) a browser maker would say, "We need an XHTML compliant browser,
and
> we need to be first to market with it because all of the developers in the
> world have changed everything to XHTML (see, we are not excluded)."
>
> As many said yesterday, it's not about the medium, it's about the message.
>
> Bev, I appreciate your strong POV as I hope (but do not require) that you
> appreciate mine. I express no ill will towards you and would be glad to
> spring for your beverage of choice at any Beervolt, any time.
>
> Peace,
>
> Jay
>
>
> A couple of my personal favorites from the IETF index;
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3092.txt?number=3092
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt?number=2795
>
> <tongue-in-cheek>
> prudish \Prud"ish\, a. Like a prude; very formal, precise, or reserved;
> affectedly severe in virtue; as, a prudish woman; prudish manners.
> prude (prd)n. One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to
> be proper, modest, or righteous.
>
> Me? I don't think so. Maybe with regards to documentation and projects
> involving groups of individuals where the goal is procedural and/or
> technical in nature. But I hate to do documentation.
> </tongue-in-cheek>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of thelist go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
>
>